I understand the burden on an organiser, but I agree with Ollie. very valid points Good stuff.

Maybe as organiser get some feedback? I'm sure Ollie was not the only one unhappy with the enforced walk. There's always a way around it.

The technicality could easily be promoted as a feature of the race.

cruiser wrote:The technicality could easily be promoted as a feature of the race.

I should perhaps have been more specific in my response earlier. The reason for the dismount was NOT about technicality, but about the potential consequence of not riding through that section cleanly. The section is steep and rocky and could result in numerous people not cleaning it, particularly in a high pressure race situation, and ending up hitting the deck. Normally that in itself would not be a big issue and would not result in a compulsory dismount. The situation with this section however is when you do get it wrong the consequences carry a LOT of risk due to the cliff/steep bank above which it sits. It is that combination that resulted in the compulsory dismount.

This photo is shocking resolution but shows the dismount section and you can hopefully see the steep bank below it and the cliff face below that. There is a long way to fall.


Putting it another way, if there was no compulsory dismount and someone went off that cliff and ended up with serious or fatal injuries as a result would people be saying why were riders not forced to walk that section?

The organiser was not trying to dumb down the race course but trying to do their best to ensure our safety.

Is it really that big an issue to run 20m? As long as it is the same for everyone on that section then it is equal for all. Dont tell me everyone rode all the rest of the track. Still plenty of technical track to show your skill on. I was talking to another marshal on Capt Thomas who said he didnt see anyone ride one section.
Is it better to have some events like this that allow riders the opportunity to race down these tracks or dumb it all down to Bottle lake. Let the organisers assess the risk and enjoy the race as well. If people want to ride that section any which way they like even with their eyes closed every other day of the week then if they crash the liability rests with them not with the organisers but on the day events managers need look at the bigger picture not some individuals stand. Out of 30km is 10 sec worth being disqualified for?

Not sure where the Marshal you talked to was standing but I rode all of the track apart from the compulsory dismount section. I am pretty certain most of the elite field would have to. I didn't have a problem with running that short section. I knew all about it before I entered the race.

However there was an option to avoid most of the technical sections of track when placing your entry. Maybe all the numpties could have gone in that section and all the others could have signed a waiver??? I have no idea of the logistics of race organising though.

The problem is Astrid Anderson's incompetence has put the shits through other organisers.

It is very clear in the risk management standards for sport events that there are many appropriate ways to manage those sort of risks.

If you haven't got one and you'd like a copy XCGuy, I'll forward one to you.

JUANGEAR wrote:Not sure where the Marshal you talked to was standing but I rode all of the track apart from the compulsory dismount section. I am pretty certain most of the elite field would have to. I didn't have a problem with running that short section. I knew all about it before I entered the race.

Agree totally. Thought about this issue a bit afterwards and its pretty simple. Organisers put some rules in place. These were clear beforehand. If you don't like it, don't enter. If you do enter an event you accept the decisions and rulings of race organisers and they should be respected as such.

XCguy wrote:

cruiser wrote:The technicality could easily be promoted as a feature of the race.

I should perhaps have been more specific in my response earlier. The reason for the dismount was NOT about technicality, but about the potential consequence of not riding through that section cleanly. The section is steep and rocky and could result in numerous people not cleaning it, particularly in a high pressure race situation, and ending up hitting the deck. Normally that in itself would not be a big issue and would not result in a compulsory dismount. The situation with this section however is when you do get it wrong the consequences carry a LOT of risk due to the cliff/steep bank above which it sits. It is that combination that resulted in the compulsory dismount.

This photo is shocking resolution but shows the dismount section and you can hopefully see the steep bank below it and the cliff face below that. There is a long way to fall.

CT.JPG

Putting it another way, if there was no compulsory dismount and someone went off that cliff and ended up with serious or fatal injuries as a result would people be saying why were riders not forced to walk that section?

The organiser was not trying to dumb down the race course but trying to do their best to ensure our safety.

Right, that makes sense I spose, cant have people dieing all over the place!
I was thinking there is nowhere there I wouldnt ride, forgetting Im one of those retarded downhiller types on a silly big travel boike.

Percy Pig wrote:Right, that makes sense I spose, cant have people dieing all over the place!
I was thinking there is nowhere there I wouldnt ride, forgetting Im one of those retarded downhiller types on a silly big travel boike.

I was one of the people who suggested the compulsory dismount in the first place - sure most of the field could have ridden it (and all of the elites), and those that weren't sure could have run it, but the real risk was down the middle of the field, where you could have someone decide to walk it, only to have the person behind commit onto it to find the riding line blocked (there's not really a lo of room to pass I'm sure you'll agree)

having seen a person go over the edge there I realise just how big the consequences are - I still think the organiser did the right thing (and I don't really think Oli proved a thing by his civil disobedience - but it's his choice)

danose wrote:

Percy Pig wrote:Right, that makes sense I spose, cant have people dieing all over the place!
I was thinking there is nowhere there I wouldnt ride, forgetting Im one of those retarded downhiller types on a silly big travel boike.

I was one of the people who suggested the compulsory dismount in the first place - sure most of the field could have ridden it (and all of the elites), and those that weren't sure could have run it, but the real risk was down the middle of the field, where you could have someone decide to walk it, only to have the person behind commit onto it to find the riding line blocked (there's not really a lo of room to pass I'm sure you'll agree)

having seen a person go over the edge there I realise just how big the consequences are - I still think the organiser did the right thing (and I don't really think Oli proved a thing by his civil disobedience - but it's his choice)

Yarp.

I guess not having ridden any XC races in a long time I dont always think of these things, you dont tend to get traffic jams during Dh races!